HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1431 OF 2014 DATE: 21.11.2014 Between:
Telegraph Traffic Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M. Gangadhara Rao & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1431 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioners – respondents appears and agrees for disposal of the appeal finally today itself. The facts of the case as they appear from the writ petition as well as the impugned judgment and order admittedly are as follows.
The writ petitioners approached the Consumer Redressal Forum against the appellant Society with appropriate complaints. The District Consumer Redressal Forum-1, Hyderabad, allowed the complaints being C.C.Nos.753 & 754 of 2009 and passed orders dated 30.06.2010 for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and Rs.2,000/- towards costs in C.C.No.753 of 2009, and Rs.6,00,000/- with interest and Rs.2,000/- towards costs in C.C.No.754 of 2009. These orders have reached their finality. Appeals were preferred unsuccessfully and the same were dismissed by the State Commission.
However, steps are required to be taken for enforcement of the said orders as they reached finality. Instead of initiating enforcement proceedings as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the writ petitioners-respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the writ Court and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition entertaining the same. In the meanwhile, the appellant society has gone into liquidation and a liquidator has been appointed.
We fail to understand why the writ Court entertained this sort of matter. According to us, it is in the nature of a private dispute and the writ Court should not have entertained a private dispute. More so, when an effective alternative remedy is available by way of execution proceedings so to say, the writ Court should not have taken the role of executing Court.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed on that ground. However, liberty is given to the writ petitioners to approach the District Consumer Forum for execution of the orders passed by it.
The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 21.11.2014 ES